U.S. Justice Passes Civil Liberties Test
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The war against terrorism has included federal and state legislation and actions by law enforcement authorities that have led our society to question exactly where to strike the balance between protecting our physical safety and protecting our civil liberties. The way in which that balance is being defined is, in fact, a triumph for our Constitution and a living civics lesson about America’s legal system.
As protesters gathered in New York City in connection with the Republican National Convention, some saw the possibility of a repeat of the violence that occurred at the Chicago Democratic Convention in 1968. But in New York City in 2004, at one of the most tense and dangerous periods in our nation’s history, the rule of law prevailed.
Protesters announced plans to stage massive demonstrations, to which New York City objected. The fight over the demonstrations was waged in court, not in the streets. Lawyers for each side argued their positions and in the end – balance. Large demonstrations could take place, but the city had some right to limit the locations.
The Police Department expressed concern that terrorists could move about easily within crowds of peaceful protesters and that a large demonstration could be used as cover for an attack. The police wanted the right to search protesters at will. Again, the issue was fought out in court and again, balance was struck. The police could search demonstrators, but only if they had reason to believe there might be a threat.
The Supreme Court recently has begun ruling on issues involving suspected terrorists or enemy combatants being held in custody by the federal government. The government would like as much latitude as possible in determining whom it can hold and under what conditions. In a war against terror, secrecy can sometimes be necessary to save lives.
On the other hand, lawyers for the accused have argued that the government has been overreaching in determining who is an enemy combatant and unfair in setting procedures for the military tribunals that will try them.
Again, these arguments are being made in the courts and the Supreme Court has ruled that the government does have broader rights when it holds enemy combatants, but that the accused individuals have the right to an impartial hearing on whether they are, indeed, enemy combatants. We expect that other issues will be heard and decided in the same, reasoned, and Constitutionally grounded fashion.
Some people complain about our legal system and about lawyers. They don’t understand why there are so many lawsuits and they don’t understand why criminals have the right to counsel and why seemingly guilty people sometimes are acquitted.
But our system of checks and balances is one of the things that sets America apart from other nations. In this country, the government may not arrest people in the middle of the night because it doesn’t like their opinions – or their race or religion – and lock them away. Everyone has the right to counsel and to a trial in open court.
If any one of us believes that he has been wronged by a powerful adversary – whether it be government, a powerful person, or a large business entity – that individual has the right to retain a lawyer, file a lawsuit, and have his grievance heard by a judge and a jury of his peers.
If the police search your home or your person without proper cause, or you are arrested without justification, you can seek redress in court. If Congress passes legislation that is illegal or unconstitutional, or government officials – ranging from a police officer to the most powerful people in the land – act in a way that violates the law, the courts have the power to override their actions, grant whatever relief is necessary, including, when appropriate, punishing the offending party.
The ongoing struggle for balance in our war against terror is a living example of our Constitution at work. Advocates on every side of the issue are getting a chance to have their say and advance their points of view. A series of court cases is being argued publicly and decided first by lower courts and ultimately through the appeals process. A free press is reporting on events every step of the way. While vigilance is certainly warranted, we have many reasons to be proud of our extraordinary legal system that is dealing with these issues and which, in the end, will leave America stronger than ever.
Mr. Standard is president of the New York State Bar Association.